Sexting and child porn: are they any different?

Untangling "sexting" and child pornography can be a tricky legal matter. …

The difference between "sexting" and "child pornography" might seem obvious, but it's not. Take one common metric for labeling something "child porn"—was it produced voluntarily? That question has its limits.

Adults can (and do) convince minors to take sexually explicit pictures by webcam, for instance. Or they acquire pictures of kids that were created voluntarily for a boyfriend or girlfriend but were later forwarded to others or posted on the 'Net (after a bad breakup, say). Though the image might look exactly like child pornography, asking "how was this produced?" might make it difficult to prosecute those who collect and view child porn.

As a recent Harvard overview of sexting and the law notes, "Every adult who possesses or trades in child pornography could claim that the images are protected by the First Amendment, unless the government can prove they were not taken voluntarily by minors, for minors."

The paper, "Sexting: Youth Practices and Legal Implications" (PDF), was authored by Dena Sacco, the former Assistant US Attorney for Massachusetts who took the lead on child porn and obscenity cases in the states. It looks at how states might respond (and have responded) to sexting, and it cites plenty of complicated cases that go far beyond the typical "high school girl sends topless photo to boyfriend" routine. For instance:

"In Massachusetts, police were considering criminal charges after an eighth grade girl sent pictures of herself to her eighth grade boyfriend, who then sold the images to other children for $5."

"In Virginia, two male high school students, aged 15 and 18, were charged with possession of child pornography and electronic solicitation for nude and semi‐nude images of minor girls contained on cell phones after they actively solicited the photos from younger female students for trade among themselves."

In Florida, "an 18‐year‐old high school senior who had recently broken up with his 16‐year‐old girlfriend e-mailed everyone on his ex‐girlfriend’s email contact list nude images that she had originally e-mailed only to him. He was convicted under state child pornography law and required to register as a sex offender."

"In Wisconsin, a 17‐year‐old boy was charged with possession of child pornography after posting naked pictures of his 16‐year‐old ex‐girlfriend online with captions [crude captions deleted]."

"Also in Wisconsin, an 18‐year‐old was sentenced to 15 years in prison for an extortion scheme in which he tricked male classmates into sending him nude photos of themselves and then blackmailed them with exposure if they refused to have sex with him."

Given the diversity of sexting practice, what's a government to do?

Three approaches

New Jersey is considering a pair of bills that focus on education, both at school and at... cell phone stores? The state might "prohibit the sale of cell phones in retail stores that do not provide pamphlets on sexting to customers," according to the Harvard paper.

In 2009, Missouri decided to make it a misdemeanor for anyone to use a "telecommunications device knowingly or recklessly to create, receive, exchange, send or possess sexually explicit images of a minor—themselves included."

Colorado decided that people would be in the clear unless "the offender [knew] or believed that the child was younger than 15 years old at the time of the offense and the offender must have been at least 4 years older than the child."

Sacco outlines three basic legal strategies that states can pursue. First, they could simply redefine child porn to exclude voluntarily produced sexting. As noted above, this is tricky because "once it is out of the hands of the minors involved, a sexted image is indistinguishable from any other sexually explicit image of a minor." Focusing on the production of the image does nothing to address distribution and consumption, and it's easy to imagine those with a hunger for child porn sating themselves through galleries of sexted images.

Second, states can roll sexted images into the "child pornography" category. Sacco outlines some thoughtful reasons for doing this based on the harm to children caused by even voluntary images that will exist "for years to come." She also notes several surveys that show girls often feel pressure to provide sexually explicit photos to boys in a way that boys do not feel in return.

But stepping in to prevent kids from doing stupid and harmful things can also be an overreaction, especially in the less-controversial cases where material is kept between romantic partners. Should they really be exposed to the full power of the law for taking photos of behavior that is itself legal? Just being registered as a sex offender can have significant impacts on one's life.

Third, there's a "middle way" approach in which the government can criminalize all such images as child pornography, thereby avoiding all the hassle about "production" and "intent" and "coercion," and focusing only on the final product. At the same time, the law can grant "affirmative defenses" to those accused of such behavior. This could allow those who take pictures of themselves or who intentionally transmit pictures to particular people to escape prosecution, and it's an approach already under consideration in several state legislatures.

ITT many people on Ars seem to like pictures of teenagers. Who would've thought?

Well, I'd guess that there are equally many of us, myself included, who are simply on the side of maximal freedom. I'm not a pedophile, hebophile, or ephebophile (beyond what's typical on that last at least), but I know what its like to be considered a "deviant" and feel marginalized because of feelings I can't control. I don't want others to have to experience that, because it sucks. Also, I don't want teenagers, already going through all the difficulties of just being a teenager, to be branded as criminals for taking pictures of things they're legally allowed to do. I don't want them to have their fledgling sexuality stifled even more than it already is.

I am not, as some have suggested earlier, "pro-pedophilia." That's like arguing with a vegetarian, having them simply assert that meat is murder, then being asked why you're pro-murder. I am in support of freedom, reason, and understanding. In the context of these sexting laws, that puts me on the side of the debate that also involves protecting pedophiles.

ITT many people on Ars seem to like pictures of teenagers. Who would've thought?

Well, I'd guess that there are equally many of us, myself included, who are simply on the side of maximal freedom. I'm not a pedophile, hebophile, or ephebophile (beyond what's typical on that last at least), but I know what its like to be considered a "deviant" and feel marginalized because of feelings I can't control. I don't want others to have to experience that, because it sucks. Also, I don't want teenagers, already going through all the difficulties of just being a teenager, to be branded as criminals for taking pictures of things they're legally allowed to do. I don't want them to have their fledgling sexuality stifled even more than it already is.

I am not, as some have suggested earlier, "pro-pedophilia." That's like arguing with a vegetarian, having them simply assert that meat is murder, then being asked why you're pro-murder. I am in support of freedom, reason, and understanding. In the context of these sexting laws, that puts me on the side of the debate that also involves protecting pedophiles.

I always thought of pedophilia like drugs, you rarely throw the addict in jail but you toss the drug sellers and makers under the prison.At the worest owning questionable real life based material(not manga or cartoons or animation or illustrations) is a fineable offense(max fine 250$ and the items are destroyed) but thats about it.. then again in this country we can use sex to sale anything but god forbid we have a adult conversation about sex and puberty and talking to kids about their own freaking body.....(we as society to their own children)

As far as I'm concerned if there is no sexual contact between two people regardless of age the images should be OK; more so if the image was clearly taken by the person in the image.

In short, my definition of child porn requires a prepubescent child, an adult and sexual contact.

I'm hard pressed to consider teenagers "children" in this regard to be frank. In the world I grew up in many kids in eight grade were already having sexual relations. Moreover I'm also of the opinion that if society consider someone mature enough to drive a car or use a gun then they should surely be considered mature enough to make decisions about their own body sexually.

On a side note: I think it is neat how the government can consider a child an adult for criminal punishment but for anything that would be generally considered a good or favorable social thing that consideration is simply not possible for the sake of all the children - WTF? That thinking simply does not fly with me.

BTW: What is up with the double standard regarding girls and chests? Why is it considered OK for boys to show skin but not girls? Smells like more religious bullshit to me... Shoot every girl I know finds a guys chest just as "sexy" as guys find girls chests. So I'm confused as to why nationally the policy is what it in the USA until I consider religion and then it makes sense to me.

As far as I'm concerned if there is no sexual contact between two people regardless of age the images should be OK; more so if the image was clearly taken by the person in the image.

In short, my definition of child porn requires a prepubescent child, an adult and sexual contact.

I'm hard pressed to consider teenagers "children" in this regard to be frank. In the world I grew up in many kids in eight grade were already having sexual relations. Moreover I'm also of the opinion that if society consider someone mature enough to drive a car or use a gun then they should surely be considered mature enough to make decisions about their own body sexually.

On a side note: I think it is neat how the government can consider a child an adult for criminal punishment but for anything that would be generally considered a good or favorable social thing that consideration is simply not possible for the sake of all the children - WTF? That thinking simply does not fly with me.

BTW: What is up with the double standard regarding girls and chests? Why is it considered OK for boys to show skin but not girls? Smells like more religious bullshit to me... Shoot every girl I know finds a guys chest just as "sexy" as guys find girls chests. So I'm confused as to why nationally as to why the policy is what it in the USA until I consider religion and then it makes sense to me.

Well females are not geared to go nuts over bewbs but males are prone to be arosed to easily...frankly the sooner we see more and more of less difference in gender the better off we will be.........

Any country where kids are criminalised for taking photos of *themselves* is broken.

Also, remember in some countries you can get labeled a sex offender for pissing on a wall, consensual sex between close-in-age but underage peers and in some cases not stopping the above as a parent if you're aware of it, or when they've tripped and their trousers got tangled and fell down.

For all of you who think that child porn laws exist solely to prevent the exploitation of children and not as a type of morality law or thought crime, then how do you explain the illegality of possessing illustrations or computer animations of imaginary entities appearing under the age of 18?

This is the most interesting area of child porn laws, imo, and it set me thinking: a not insignificant number of perfectly normal people in the US have very likely been watching what the law would define as child porn without even realizing it. I'm speaking of the popular Showtime series, The Tudors, and specifically the character of Katherine Howard, a 17-year-old girl who is depicted nude and having sex with several other characters on a regular basis throughout the first half of season four. The actress playing the character is an adult, but since the law criminalizes the depiction, the age of the actress is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the character is, unarguably, a legal minor.

That...does not make sense.

I brought this up earlier (yesterday). In short: that hasn't been illegal since 2002.

Mknoll: I agree with your position, but the Supremes ruled in 2002 on the case of Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, and effectively decriminalized imagery where sexual participants appeared to be underage, but were not actual minors. This applies not only to, "Hot teen sex!" videos, but also to art, comics, and videos, including hentai content. The fact that it's not applied consistently is a failing of the law, unquestionably.

Yes, and in response to Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, Congress passed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003. This act placed into law 18 U.S.C. 1466A. Which states

18 U.S.C. 1466A wrote:

(a) In General.— Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and is obscene; or depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A (b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

(c) Nonrequired Element of Offense.— It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

On December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1466A and sentenced for 20 years.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on December 18, 2008. Specifically pointing out section (c) of the law stating that it doesn't matter if the person depicted is real.

The Supreme Court denied a rehearing on June 15, 2009 and again on January 11, 2010.

In my opinion, Dwight Whorley is a sick individual. However, I think his case makes it obviously clear that the US child porn laws are no longer about just protect children from exploitation. When a law is passed and refused to be heard by the Supreme Court that makes it even illegal to possess fictional pornography where there is no victim to be exploited, then how can that be seen as anything other than a thought crime?

So, actually, according to this law hux's point isn't so absurd. The Tudors does in fact contain a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. However, the part that makes this legal is that it could be argued that the Tudors does not lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Of course, each person is risking their life on the interpretation of "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

EmeraldArcana wrote:

ITT many people on Ars seem to like pictures of teenagers. Who would've thought?

What a simplistic and dangerous viewpoint you hold.

Pastor Martin Niemöller wrote:

THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for meand by that time no one was left to speak up.

or how about

Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote:

The greatest sins of our time are committed not by the few who have destroyed, but by the vast majority who sat idly by.

or simply

Edmund Burk wrote:

All that is required for evil to flourish is that good men do nothing.

Any exploitation of minors by adults should be illegal and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Pedophiles are mentally sick individuals. I neither condone nor understand them. However, this isn't about me or most (any) of the others on this board being attracted to teens. It is about standing up for what is morally right and wrong.

What the legislators of this country are currently dealing with is no longer about protecting the children, in fact, as many have stated on this board some of the proposed laws are directly contradictory to this intent. They aren't seeking to protect minors, they are seeking to give them virtual life sentences for being normal, impulsive and stupid teens. Further, they are seeking to enact thought crime laws. They are seeking to "come for" those that think in a way that the majority of society finds reprehensible. It is easy to take that first step, because people like you are more than willing to "do nothing", to "sit idly by", and in fact, you are more than willing to actively help those who seek to enact these laws by vilifying anyone who would speak up as, obviously, being one of the reprehensible. Of course, who else would speak for these disgusting individuals?

This is along the same lines as our First Amendment, which can easily be summed up by the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I, and many others, might disapprove of what these people think, but we will defend to the death their right to think it. Once, thought is moved to action or is shown to have a negative affect on others, then it ceases to be a thought crime and becomes a real crime.

The production of real child porn is a nasty thing which has a negative affect on the children involved. Thus, it should be illegal. A person looking at a drawing of an imaginary person has been shown to have no negative affect on anyone, but we wish to make it illegal. I teen sexting a picture of themselves, might have a negative affect on themselves, but that is called living and learning. It might be incredibly stupid, but it shouldn't be illegal.

Not every sex offender is a pedophile, and not every pedophile is a sex offender. In many of the sexting instances listed in this story, it is most definitely a gray area. American sex laws are quite contrary. If you're a teen and you have sex with a teacher, you're a victim, have sex with a classmate you're a sex offender, and take a pic of yourself naked you're a child pornographer. Only in America do we post children as young as age 10 on public registries for these types of behavior. Is taking a picture of yourself and sending it to someone else stupid? Yes, but by the same token is it so criminal we label them as sexual predators for life? I hardly think so. In cases of blackmail or forced, there may be a valid argument, but in cases where a person consents its a different story.

Mknoll: I agree with your position, but the Supremes ruled in 2002 on the case of Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, and effectively decriminalized imagery where sexual participants appeared to be underage, but were not actual minors. This applies not only to, "Hot teen sex!" videos, but also to art, comics, and videos, including hentai content. The fact that it's not applied consistently is a failing of the law, unquestionably.

Yes, and in response to Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, Congress passed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003. This act placed into law 18 U.S.C. 1466A. Which states

18 U.S.C. 1466A wrote:

(a) In General.— Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and is obscene; or depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A (b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

(c) Nonrequired Element of Offense.— It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

On December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1466A and sentenced for 20 years.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on December 18, 2008. Specifically pointing out section (c) of the law stating that it doesn't matter if the person depicted is real.

The Supreme Court denied a rehearing on June 15, 2009 and again on January 11, 2010.

In my opinion, Dwight Whorley is a sick individual. However, I think his case makes it obviously clear that the US child porn laws are no longer about just protect children from exploitation. When a law is passed and refused to be heard by the Supreme Court that makes it even illegal to possess fictional pornography where there is no victim to be exploited, then how can that be seen as anything other than a thought crime?

So, actually, according to this law hux's point isn't so absurd. The Tudors does in fact contain a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. However, the part that makes this legal is that it could be argued that the Tudors does not lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Of course, each person is risking their life on the interpretation of "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

EmeraldArcana wrote:

ITT many people on Ars seem to like pictures of teenagers. Who would've thought?

What a simplistic and dangerous viewpoint you hold.

Pastor Martin Niemöller wrote:

THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for meand by that time no one was left to speak up.

or how about

Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote:

The greatest sins of our time are committed not by the few who have destroyed, but by the vast majority who sat idly by.

or simply

Edmund Burk wrote:

All that is required for evil to flourish is that good men do nothing.

Any exploitation of minors by adults should be illegal and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Pedophiles are mentally sick individuals. I neither condone nor understand them. However, this isn't about me or most (any) of the others on this board being attracted to teens. It is about standing up for what is morally right and wrong.

What the legislators of this country are currently dealing with is no longer about protecting the children, in fact, as many have stated on this board some of the proposed laws are directly contradictory to this intent. They aren't seeking to protect minors, they are seeking to give them virtual life sentences for being normal, impulsive and stupid teens. Further, they are seeking to enact thought crime laws. They are seeking to "come for" those that think in a way that the majority of society finds reprehensible. It is easy to take that first step, because people like you are more than willing to "do nothing", to "sit idly by", and in fact, you are more than willing to actively help those who seek to enact these laws by vilifying anyone who would speak up as, obviously, being one of the reprehensible. Of course, who else would speak for these disgusting individuals?

This is along the same lines as our First Amendment, which can easily be summed up by the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I, and many others, might disapprove of what these people think, but we will defend to the death their right to think it. Once, thought is moved to action or is shown to have a negative affect on others, then it ceases to be a thought crime and becomes a real crime.

The production of real child porn is a nasty thing which has a negative affect on the children involved. Thus, it should be illegal. A person looking at a drawing of an imaginary person has been shown to have no negative affect on anyone, but we wish to make it illegal. I teen sexting a picture of themselves, might have a negative affect on themselves, but that is called living and learning. It might be incredibly stupid, but it shouldn't be illegal.

children(under 13 or 10 and under)>minors(13/14 and over) , we should not go over board and protect inter person exploitation/bad relationship choices via the courts. There needs to be a cut off point where you the individual should be held responsible for your own actions and frankly it needs to start closer to 15 than 18...... then again the US is populated by sheeple IE childish adults...

I think one of the main problems with these laws is that we've made the punishments too absolute. Nobody likes exploiting children, but it does happen, and those are the people that need to be gone after. The problem with that is they are usually hard to track down. So what do we do? We go after the possessors.

This has the effect of making the possessor the criminal(not to mention the free speech implications, etc.) thus decreasing the market simply becasue of the fact that since it is illegal to possess the material the material will be less available. I don't really see it as being less available though, and it really has gone into the underground so that it is not readily accessible but usually well hidden when it is.

Sexting has no business being lumped in with child pornography though, and as such it should carry a lesser penalty, if any penalty at all really. So what if some 16 year old decides to take a pictureo f her boobs and send them to her boyfriend, it's not like it really hurts anyone. However, if that boyfriend then sends those pics to someone else, I think he should at least be prosecuted for some kind of distribution type crime. But that is a totally different 'crime' and should have different penalties attached.

Either way, the penalties should not include the stigma of being labeled as a sex offender. That's as bad as making someone who urinates in public a sex offender.

Polite society abhors the exploitation of children as it rightly should, however making nonsense crimes and penalties of the type we have should also be abhorred.

I think one of the main problems with these laws is that we've made the punishments too absolute. Nobody likes exploiting children, but it does happen, and those are the people that need to be gone after. The problem with that is they are usually hard to track down. So what do we do? We go after the possessors.

This has the effect of making the possessor the criminal(not to mention the free speech implications, etc.) thus decreasing the market simply becasue of the fact that since it is illegal to possess the material the material will be less available. I don't really see it as being less available though, and it really has gone into the underground so that it is not readily accessible but usually well hidden when it is.

Sexting has no business being lumped in with child pornography though, and as such it should carry a lesser penalty, if any penalty at all really. So what if some 16 year old decides to take a pictureo f her boobs and send them to her boyfriend, it's not like it really hurts anyone. However, if that boyfriend then sends those pics to someone else, I think he should at least be prosecuted for some kind of distribution type crime. But that is a totally different 'crime' and should have different penalties attached.

Either way, the penalties should not include the stigma of being labeled as a sex offender. That's as bad as making someone who urinates in public a sex offender.

Polite society abhors the exploitation of children as it rightly should, however making nonsense crimes and penalties of the type we have should also be abhorred.

Whats worse all it dose is create more criminals to be processed by the legal system than it dose to seek reasonable justice and punishment. Have you heard about the child porn downloder virus? A few innocent people have been nabed on it alone and zero thought laws rarely takes that into account....

We could criminalize the redistribution of sexually-explicit images without the express consent of the people involved, and then declare people under 18 to be unable to consent to redistribution. This would have the excellent side-effect of criminalizing behavior I, at least, view as a form of sexual assault.

I mean, when I was a kid the only people who took sexually explicit photos of themselves were the photography nerds because we had private access to a dark room. Everyone else was limited to drawing sexually explicit pictures of themselves. The problem I have with "sexting" isn't children acting out adult behaviors, it's adults taking advantage of that. Education and protection of the children involved will probably do more than any laws; if the kids are going to go to jail for having taken pictures of themselves they aren't going to tell anyone that someone is redistributing those pictures.

We could criminalize the redistribution of sexually-explicit images without the express consent of the people involved, and then declare people under 18 to be unable to consent to redistribution. This would have the excellent side-effect of criminalizing behavior I, at least, view as a form of sexual assault.

I mean, when I was a kid the only people who took sexually explicit photos of themselves were the photography nerds because we had private access to a dark room. Everyone else was limited to drawing sexually explicit pictures of themselves. The problem I have with "sexting" isn't children acting out adult behaviors, it's adults taking advantage of that. Education and protection of the children involved will probably do more than any laws; if the kids are going to go to jail for having taken pictures of themselves they aren't going to tell anyone that someone is redistributing those pictures.

Teens are children too and you can;t really call them sex predators... whats next criminalizing children that say they masturbate or touch themselfs?

How about we keep things reasonable and in perspective its not child porn unless its a child(under 10) doing a sex act anything else the parents and courts can deal with on a case by case basis(since I trust the law(at least the feel good sugar water crap that gets passed to make things look better when they do nothing to deal with the real problem...) less than the courts or the parents to do whats reasonable), zero tolerance law/rules fails as much as making child porn...... both of which should be life time felonies with no parole for making....

More thoughtsPictures can be dealt with on a IP/CP basis, any REAL PERSON"s" under 10 is an automatic violent assault and life in prison, assaulting a minor(anything and everything illegal with a minor in the age range of 11-14) is automatic 5 year parole for first offense 2nd offense is a 5K fine and 1-5 years in prison repeated assaults puts the adult in jail for 5-10. From 15 and up there is no statutory rape cases are handled on a case by case basis if the curt and shrinks say they were truly harmed then it becomes minor assault if they are harmed/threatened,ect you get 5-10 with 10 years of parole.

Screw if it was a sexual assault or not lets put away adults who beat up and use kids for illicit things while we are trying to balance out things.

Now the courts can decide on a case by case basis if a person is mentally fit enough to act like an adult, if they are not mature then they get 3 chances to stop doing whatever it is that getting them in trouble before being put away for 5-10.

I'll look at those happily as well, any man that tells you they dont is a liar IMHO.

Or decidedly gay, but your point still stands.

MJ the Prophet wrote:

Well, I'd guess that there are equally many of us, myself included, who are simply on the side of maximal freedom. I'm not a pedophile, hebophile, or ephebophile (beyond what's typical on that last at least), but I know what its like to be considered a "deviant" and feel marginalized because of feelings I can't control. I don't want others to have to experience that, because it sucks. Also, I don't want teenagers, already going through all the difficulties of just being a teenager, to be branded as criminals for taking pictures of things they're legally allowed to do. I don't want them to have their fledgling sexuality stifled even more than it already is.

I am not, as some have suggested earlier, "pro-pedophilia." That's like arguing with a vegetarian, having them simply assert that meat is murder, then being asked why you're pro-murder. I am in support of freedom, reason, and understanding. In the context of these sexting laws, that puts me on the side of the debate that also involves protecting pedophiles.

registering sex offenders needs to stop... no, I dont like child molestors, but too many people on that list are FAR FAR FAR from being one and lets face it - I can find plenty of them around Long Island (where I live) using that map locator thing - and no one around here does ANYTHING different with their kids.

We could criminalize the redistribution of sexually-explicit images without the express consent of the people involved, and then declare people under 18 to be unable to consent to redistribution. This would have the excellent side-effect of criminalizing behavior I, at least, view as a form of sexual assault.

You mean like two sixteen year olds, legally able to have sex, swapping naked photos. Right. That is the EXACT scenario already prosecuted in several cases, because phones were confiscated and searched.

To those who think that 18 is some magic line in the sand, consider two real life cases from my own family.

My father's oldest living brother married his wife in the late 1930's. He was 19 years old at the time and she was 13. You read that correctly. *13*.

By *today's* laws this was legally pedophilia, making him a pedophile. He and my aunt raised 5 girls who had children of their own, some of who also have children. Yet without that "pedophile" my cousins would never have been born. Had he waited 5 years *NONE* of their descendants would exist--other humans might perhaps, but not *them*.

My maternal grandfather married his wife when he was 17 years old and she was 14. They were married for *60* years. Together they raised 3 girls, all of whom had children, and now grandchildren.

In point of fact neither my grandmother nor my aunt were over today's age of consent (which is 16 in Ohio, and most other states). If the laws then were as they are now they could not have gotten married so young, and thus my mother could not have born--and thus *I* would not exist.

Probably every single person posting on this board had a direct female ancestor who married before the age of 16--meaning every single person on this board owes their lives to a man and woman who comitted the heinous crime of pedophilia--at least as defined by modern law.

In point of fact and by definition, *none* of those (male) ancestors were pedophiles because prepubescent children can not be impregnated. Pedophiles go after *PRE*pubscent children (which is really a redundancy).

Now consider Hugh Hefner. He's in his mid-eighties at this point and has 3 girlfriends whom he has sex with, and I believe one of them is *18*. Were he to live in Ohio he could still *legally* have sex with a 16 year-old. *LEGALLY*. Since he lives in New York (I think) 18 is the age of consent as well as the age of majority.

(To the poster who mentioned Romeo and Juliet laws, these are used to make sex between minors legal or a far lesser crime when the AOC is 18. Most states AOC laws do not specify an upper limit to the other partner even when the AOC is 16).

Aside from the obvious squick factor and envy he provokes I am at a loss to say why HH is okay legally and my uncle/aunt and grandparents would not be.

To answer some of the more mindless objections before they're posted:

Marriage vs sex-for-fun makes little difference from a maturity standpoint. My aunt had to take care of her children, her home, and her husband from the time she was 13 (she had her first child @ 14). My grandmother had to do that and run a *farm* while my grandfather worked in the oil fields. Arguably they had made a *BIGGER* choice than today's teens have to, especially considering there was no birth control back then.

This all happened within living memory, so you can't argue humans have changed. Society/technology, maybe, but not people. If a 13-14 year old can handle adult responsibilities *on their own* without immediate family support (my aunt moved 100+ miles from her family) *then*, there's no reason individuals today can't.

Granted, I wouldn't trust most 16 year-olds these days to walk my dog, but that's not inherent in human biology, it's how you raise and train your children, and the values you instill in them.

So when some posters accuse others of being/supporting pedophiles I would point out 2 important facts.

1) It isn't pedophilia if the girl is post-pubescent, legal arguments notwithstanding.

2) You owe your existance to ancestors who by our laws would be labeled "pedophiles" and sex offenders.

To those who think that 18 is some magic line in the sand, consider two real life cases from my own family.

My father's oldest living brother married his wife in the late 1930's. He was 19 years old at the time and she was 13. You read that correctly. *13*.

By *today's* laws this was legally pedophilia, making him a pedophile. He and my aunt raised 5 girls who had children of their own, some of who also have children. Yet without that "pedophile" my cousins would never have been born. Had he waited 5 years *NONE* of their descendants would exist--other humans might perhaps, but not *them*.

My maternal grandfather married his wife when he was 17 years old and she was 14. They were married for *60* years. Together they raised 3 girls, all of whom had children, and now grandchildren.

In point of fact neither my grandmother nor my aunt were over today's age of consent (which is 16 in Ohio, and most other states). If the laws then were as they are now they could not have gotten married so young, and thus my mother could not have born--and thus *I* would not exist.

Probably every single person posting on this board had a direct female ancestor who married before the age of 16--meaning every single person on this board owes their lives to a man and woman who comitted the heinous crime of pedophilia--at least as defined by modern law.

In point of fact and by definition, *none* of those (male) ancestors were pedophiles because prepubescent children can not be impregnated. Pedophiles go after *PRE*pubscent children (which is really a redundancy).

Now consider Hugh Hefner. He's in his mid-eighties at this point and has 3 girlfriends whom he has sex with, and I believe one of them is *18*. Were he to live in Ohio he could still *legally* have sex with a 16 year-old. *LEGALLY*. Since he lives in New York (I think) 18 is the age of consent as well as the age of majority.

(To the poster who mentioned Romeo and Juliet laws, these are used to make sex between minors legal or a far lesser crime when the AOC is 18. Most states AOC laws do not specify an upper limit to the other partner even when the AOC is 16).

Aside from the obvious squick factor and envy he provokes I am at a loss to say why HH is okay legally and my uncle/aunt and grandparents would not be.

To answer some of the more mindless objections before they're posted:

Marriage vs sex-for-fun makes little difference from a maturity standpoint. My aunt had to take care of her children, her home, and her husband from the time she was 13 (she had her first child @ 14). My grandmother had to do that and run a *farm* while my grandfather worked in the oil fields. Arguably they had made a *BIGGER* choice than today's teens have to, especially considering there was no birth control back then.

This all happened within living memory, so you can't argue humans have changed. Society/technology, maybe, but not people. If a 13-14 year old can handle adult responsibilities *on their own* without immediate family support (my aunt moved 100+ miles from her family) *then*, there's no reason individuals today can't.

Granted, I wouldn't trust most 16 year-olds these days to walk my dog, but that's not inherent in human biology, it's how you raise and train your children, and the values you instill in them.

So when some posters accuse others of being/supporting pedophiles I would point out 2 important facts.

1) It isn't pedophilia if the girl is post-pubescent, legal arguments notwithstanding.

2) You owe your existance to ancestors who by our laws would be labeled "pedophiles" and sex offenders.

Something to think about.

Pretty much we need more case by case based on the case rulings than a all in one thing that dose not take into account the the cases realities and jut says generic X meets generic Y hey looky we can lable you and toss you in the system so the jail/processing system gets more funds.

meh. why should possesing child porn be illegal? before you burst off, lemme just say: should possessing rape porn be illegal? cuz a lotta people do it.

focus more on the actual offenders instead of the millions - yes millions - of possessors of porn, (aka the scapegoat of all times)

Almost all of rape porn is not actual rape. If it is done by an established company or site, it probably isn't real. It's mere fantasy. Amateur is completely different story since that's basically anyone. But anyway you look at child porn, a child is involved in it and that is real, whether it be voluntary or not and that is a huge issue.

meh. why should possesing child porn be illegal? before you burst off, lemme just say: should possessing rape porn be illegal? cuz a lotta people do it.

focus more on the actual offenders instead of the millions - yes millions - of possessors of porn, (aka the scapegoat of all times)

Almost all of rape porn is not actual rape. If it is done by an established company or site, it probably isn't real. It's mere fantasy. Amateur is completely different story since that's basically anyone. But anyway you look at child porn, a child is involved in it and that is real, whether it be voluntary or not and that is a huge issue.

The difference is spreading questionable pictures the other is making said pictures IMO those are worlds apart, like shooting someone who is about to to put a axe in your skull and shooting a random person, both have the same end result but both are handled differently.

Even as a parent, I don't think that pictures of simple nudity should ever be criminalized, EVEN if there are people who sexually enjoy seeing that nudity. Pre-pubescent sexual activity and images thereof can stay illegal, please. Anything less than that, however lewd or disturbing it may appear to the rest of us, should be legal. Teens should be free to do what they want, within the bounds their legal guardians allow (or don't notice). We don't have to like it, and we can work to stop it, but not with the heavy hand of the criminal justice system. Emotionally I'd be fine with killing anyone who expressed any interest in pre-pubescent kids; ethically and legally, as long as they don't attempt to do anything with kids, they should have as much liberty as any other person.

Also, if you're against pedophilia, make those preteen beauty pageants illegal *shudder*. I say that only partially joking.

Child pornography? What the f*ck? We're so into the "please think of teh chilliuns!" crap that we now equate people saying sexual stuff with "child pornography"? Jesus H. Christ get your facts straight. This is disgusting in ways I can't even begin to describe.

Child pornography? What the f*ck? We're so into the "please think of teh chilliuns!" crap that we now equate people saying sexual stuff with "child pornography"? Jesus H. Christ get your facts straight. This is disgusting in ways I can't even begin to describe.

On the main page you say: "Untangling "sexting" and child pornography can be a tricky legal matter. Turning ordinary high schoolers into sex offenders might not be the answer, but ignoring the issue altogether could help pedophiles. Here's how states are responding."

Why do you say pedophiles? There is nothing inherently wrong with being a pedophile. Maybe you mean child molester? As I've asked before, do you rape every person you are attracted to? Attraction and action, there is a huge difference.

As much as I'm relying on anonymity here to say this, I agree with your last statement from a legal standpoint. Someone should not be prosecuted for their interests, but for their actions, and in reality, that's how it works most of the time.

On Another Note: Sexting and child pornography are different, in the same way that phone sex with an adult and phone sex with a minor are different. Sexting is an action that can be done between any age group, child pornography occurs between two children or a child and an adult. Sexting should not be banned in any way shape or form in relation to child protection under that premise. Sexting and child porn are not synonymous.

In my opinion, Dwight Whorley is a sick individual. However, I think his case makes it obviously clear that the US child porn laws are no longer about just protect children from exploitation. When a law is passed and refused to be heard by the Supreme Court that makes it even illegal to possess fictional pornography where there is no victim to be exploited, then how can that be seen as anything other than a thought crime?

It can be seen as what it is, persecution of a minority by religious conservatives(and they're often on both sides of the political spectrum.), as they've done in the past they continue with their irrational witch hunts. They don't care if they pass laws that increase the probability a child is murdered or a child's life is ruined by being labelled a sex offender, they don't care about freedom or privacy, they don't care about the constitution, they're irrational beasts that have shown throughout history that they cannot be reasoned with burning, torturing or encarcerating and silencing some of the brightest minds.

Quote:

The production of real child porn is a nasty thing which has a negative affect on the children involved. Thus, it should be illegal.

I don't agree, pictures or videos of a murder or rape(of adults, not fake rapes but actually caught on tape criminally prosecuted ones. ) or torture are legal to possess. Some should not be more equal than others before the law. Why should crimes committed only when it is against a certain segment of the population be made illegal to document? It is only because of prudish rules that have been embedded in our culture. It is legal to possess a video of a child being shot in the head, or being dismembered alive, which is far worse. So I do not see why sexual taboos should dictate the law. If we're gonna do this then reasonably we should've to make it illegal to possess evidence of all crimes of the same or greater severity such as murder, torture or rape, including when it involves adults.

Obviously the producers of this, the ACTUAL CRIMINALS e.g. the legal guardians or whatever sick adult is involved or coercing the child should face SEVERE penalties. If some how an investigation proves a child is distributing pictures of themselves and it is investigated and no coercing party found, then some sort of lighter penalty should apply to them(though their guardian should also be punished for allowing this to take place.).

Nudity is not pornography, but often considered so in many countries, and if a child has family bath time pictures or pictures or vids running around naked it should be legal for him to distribute and sell if he wants to once he's become an adult. There was no victim, it was a legal activity, he's grown up now and should be free to do with pictures of his body as he wants to do. IT is RIDICULOUS to send him to jail for possession of photos or videos of himself, to label him a sex offender or to force him to destroy his private property.

Also a couple of teenagers that video taped their consensual sex, and have now both grown up, if they both agree to it, they should be able to possess, share or sell their tapes. Again it was a legal activity, they're both adults now and it should be their choice not the goverment. Sending them to jail, labelling them sex offenders or forcing them to destroy their property should not be done.

Also making it illegal for them or their families( we have to protect naturist/nudists' rights to family photos too!) to take nude nonsexual pictures is ridiculous. How exactly is sending a kid to jail and labelling him a sex offender for privately taking a picture of himself and keeping it private going to help him? I don't see how.

In some countries even the rights of small breasted fully grown adult women to distribute porn of themselves have been restricted. Ridiculous persecution by conservatives.

Quote:

More thoughtsPictures can be dealt with on a IP/CP basis, any REAL PERSON"s" under 10 is an automatic violent assault and life in prison, assaulting a minor(anything and everything illegal with a minor in the age range of 11-14) is automatic 5 year parole for first offense 2nd offense is a 5K fine and 1-5 years in prison repeated assaults puts the adult in jail for 5-10. From 15 and up there is no statutory rape cases are handled on a case by case basis if the curt and shrinks say they were truly harmed then it becomes minor assault if they are harmed/threatened,ect you get 5-10 with 10 years of parole.

Screw if it was a sexual assault or not lets put away adults who beat up and use kids for illicit things while we are trying to balance out things.

With regards to penalties my take is that a child is not more valuable than an adult. Whatever penalties apply should be equal to those of crimes committed against adults. If you want stiffer penalties it is only fair that the law offers the same protection and punishment for crimes against ALL CITIZENS not some segment of the population.

Handicapped people, mentally or physically are just as powerless and defenseless as children, as mentioned. So are many old people, and so is practically anyone if they're facing a trained attacker with the right drugs.

Most societies have the built-in evolutionary imperative to protect the children of the village, this drive is extremely strong because it benefited our ancestors. But we've to look at things through a rational eye. A citizen should be no more valuable just because they're defenseless or younger, equality before the law that's what we've thought for and that's what we should defend.

Quote:

But anyway you look at child porn, a child is involved in it and that is real, whether it be voluntary or not and that is a huge issue.

AFAIK, it is legal to possess videos of children being shot at made crippled or killed point blank. It involves real children, it is a worst crime as they lose their lives and sometimes in extreme pain, and it is legal to possess.

It is also, at least in most places, perfectly legal to possess photos and videos of torture, murder, and in the case of adults rape(from an alley camera or something.).

Quote:

Emotionally I'd be fine with killing anyone who expressed any interest in pre-pubescent kids;

This is the attitude that prevails in society, yet murderers and rapists of adults are often seen in a far better light by most of society. In fact some families seek to cover up when date rape occurs or when a husband rapes their wifes, and some even find it perfectly normal and tell the wife to accept it... "that it's the husband's right to get sex when he wants, even if she doesn't"...

Is that not irrational? Some members of society see rape as something the victim should hide, tolerate, or even approve if it is a husband or a boyfriend. But if it involves a child suddenly these very same people start talking torture, dismemberment, life and death penalty.

My point is, a crime against a human is a crime agaisnt a human, and all humans should have EQUAL protection under the law and EQUAL punishment for the offenders. Even if society has its own twisted and twosided way of handling crimes in different ways and treating some better than others.

Minorities should not be persecuted and treated differently just because the majority dislikes them for mental illness, race, sex, etc.

Emotionally I'd be fine with killing anyone who expressed any interest in pre-pubescent kids;

This is the attitude that prevails in society, yet murderers and rapists of adults are often seen in a far better light by most of society. In fact some families seek to cover up when date rape occurs or when a husband rapes their wifes, and some even find it perfectly normal and tell the wife to accept it... "that it's the husband's right to get sex when he wants, even if she doesn't"...

Is that not irrational? Some members of society see rape as something the victim should hide, tolerate, or even approve if it is a husband or a boyfriend. But if it involves a child suddenly these very same people start talking torture, dismemberment, life and death penalty.

My point is, a crime against a human is a crime agaisnt a human, and all humans should have EQUAL protection under the law and EQUAL punishment for the offenders. Even if society has its own twisted and twosided way of handling crimes in different ways and treating some better than others.

Minorities should not be persecuted and treated differently just because the majority dislikes them for mental illness, race, sex, etc.

We weren't discussing child molestation or pedophilia attitudes versus murder or rape, but emotionally I'd be fine with killing murderers or rapists too. In reality, I would prefer that they be tried and sent to jail, because the justice system is very imperfect at best, and because emotion shouldn't rule social behavior. True children need more protection than most adults, which provokes overreactions to to situations that might harm them. Rape among adults can get into nasty grey areas with date rape or in marriage that are probably best dealt with in another topic. And since you chopped off the rest, just because emotionally I detest true pedophilia regardless of action, that doesn't mean I support any negative consequences for those who only desire and don't act on their feelings. Meanwhile, I don't see any place for the law in voluntary teen sexual activity. Parents, peers, religion, condoms, ethics, birth control, French ticklers, sure. Jail time, no.

In my opinion, Dwight Whorley is a sick individual. However, I think his case makes it obviously clear that the US child porn laws are no longer about just protect children from exploitation. When a law is passed and refused to be heard by the Supreme Court that makes it even illegal to possess fictional pornography where there is no victim to be exploited, then how can that be seen as anything other than a thought crime?

It can be seen as what it is, persecution of a minority by religious conservatives(and they're often on both sides of the political spectrum.), as they've done in the past they continue with their irrational witch hunts. They don't care if they pass laws that increase the probability a child is murdered or a child's life is ruined by being labelled a sex offender, they don't care about freedom or privacy, they don't care about the constitution, they're irrational beasts that have shown throughout history that they cannot be reasoned with burning, torturing or encarcerating and silencing some of the brightest minds.

Quote:

The production of real child porn is a nasty thing which has a negative affect on the children involved. Thus, it should be illegal.

I don't agree, pictures or videos of a murder or rape(of adults, not fake rapes but actually caught on tape criminally prosecuted ones. ) or torture are legal to possess. Some should not be more equal than others before the law. Why should crimes committed only when it is against a certain segment of the population be made illegal to document? It is only because of prudish rules that have been embedded in our culture. It is legal to possess a video of a child being shot in the head, or being dismembered alive, which is far worse. So I do not see why sexual taboos should dictate the law. If we're gonna do this then reasonably we should've to make it illegal to possess evidence of all crimes of the same or greater severity such as murder, torture or rape, including when it involves adults.

Obviously the producers of this, the ACTUAL CRIMINALS e.g. the legal guardians or whatever sick adult is involved or coercing the child should face SEVERE penalties. If some how an investigation proves a child is distributing pictures of themselves and it is investigated and no coercing party found, then some sort of lighter penalty should apply to them(though their guardian should also be punished for allowing this to take place.).

Nudity is not pornography, but often considered so in many countries, and if a child has family bath time pictures or pictures or vids running around naked it should be legal for him to distribute and sell if he wants to once he's become an adult. There was no victim, it was a legal activity, he's grown up now and should be free to do with pictures of his body as he wants to do. IT is RIDICULOUS to send him to jail for possession of photos or videos of himself, to label him a sex offender or to force him to destroy his private property.

Also a couple of teenagers that video taped their consensual sex, and have now both grown up, if they both agree to it, they should be able to possess, share or sell their tapes. Again it was a legal activity, they're both adults now and it should be their choice not the goverment. Sending them to jail, labelling them sex offenders or forcing them to destroy their property should not be done.

Also making it illegal for them or their families( we have to protect naturist/nudists' rights to family photos too!) to take nude nonsexual pictures is ridiculous. How exactly is sending a kid to jail and labelling him a sex offender for privately taking a picture of himself and keeping it private going to help him? I don't see how.

In some countries even the rights of small breasted fully grown adult women to distribute porn of themselves have been restricted. Ridiculous persecution by conservatives.

Quote:

More thoughtsPictures can be dealt with on a IP/CP basis, any REAL PERSON"s" under 10 is an automatic violent assault and life in prison, assaulting a minor(anything and everything illegal with a minor in the age range of 11-14) is automatic 5 year parole for first offense 2nd offense is a 5K fine and 1-5 years in prison repeated assaults puts the adult in jail for 5-10. From 15 and up there is no statutory rape cases are handled on a case by case basis if the curt and shrinks say they were truly harmed then it becomes minor assault if they are harmed/threatened,ect you get 5-10 with 10 years of parole.

Screw if it was a sexual assault or not lets put away adults who beat up and use kids for illicit things while we are trying to balance out things.

With regards to penalties my take is that a child is not more valuable than an adult. Whatever penalties apply should be equal to those of crimes committed against adults. If you want stiffer penalties it is only fair that the law offers the same protection and punishment for crimes against ALL CITIZENS not some segment of the population.

Handicapped people, mentally or physically are just as powerless and defenseless as children, as mentioned. So are many old people, and so is practically anyone if they're facing a trained attacker with the right drugs.

Most societies have the built-in evolutionary imperative to protect the children of the village, this drive is extremely strong because it benefited our ancestors. But we've to look at things through a rational eye. A citizen should be no more valuable just because they're defenseless or younger, equality before the law that's what we've thought for and that's what we should defend.

Quote:

But anyway you look at child porn, a child is involved in it and that is real, whether it be voluntary or not and that is a huge issue.

AFAIK, it is legal to possess videos of children being shot at made crippled or killed point blank. It involves real children, it is a worst crime as they lose their lives and sometimes in extreme pain, and it is legal to possess.

It is also, at least in most places, perfectly legal to possess photos and videos of torture, murder, and in the case of adults rape(from an alley camera or something.).

Quote:

Emotionally I'd be fine with killing anyone who expressed any interest in pre-pubescent kids;

This is the attitude that prevails in society, yet murderers and rapists of adults are often seen in a far better light by most of society. In fact some families seek to cover up when date rape occurs or when a husband rapes their wifes, and some even find it perfectly normal and tell the wife to accept it... "that it's the husband's right to get sex when he wants, even if she doesn't"...

Is that not irrational? Some members of society see rape as something the victim should hide, tolerate, or even approve if it is a husband or a boyfriend. But if it involves a child suddenly these very same people start talking torture, dismemberment, life and death penalty.

My point is, a crime against a human is a crime agaisnt a human, and all humans should have EQUAL protection under the law and EQUAL punishment for the offenders. Even if society has its own twisted and twosided way of handling crimes in different ways and treating some better than others.

Minorities should not be persecuted and treated differently just because the majority dislikes them for mental illness, race, sex, etc.

Children should be valued a bit more than adults at least when it comes to being taken advantage of in such ways. Then again I think after 3 violent rapes or in cold blood murders you should have a bullet placed between the eyeballs....computer aimed automated fireing squads is what we need.........

meh. why should possesing child porn be illegal? before you burst off, lemme just say: should possessing rape porn be illegal? cuz a lotta people do it.

focus more on the actual offenders instead of the millions - yes millions - of possessors of porn, (aka the scapegoat of all times)

Almost all of rape porn is not actual rape. If it is done by an established company or site, it probably isn't real. It's mere fantasy. Amateur is completely different story since that's basically anyone. But anyway you look at child porn, a child is involved in it and that is real, whether it be voluntary or not and that is a huge issue.

Keep in mind the relevant statutes that have been mentioned here. Child porn legally does not have to involve a child; at least one conviction has been made based the fact that the child in question need not actually exist. Possessing a drawing of a minor engaged in a sexual act, even if that minor has no actual human counterpart, is illegal in the US.

Rape among adults can get into nasty grey areas with date rape or in marriage that are probably best dealt with in another topic.

Rape is never a gray area. Safe word play excepted, if a person says "no", and the other person carries on, it's rape, end of story. Whether the two people are complete strangers, acquaintances on a date, or have been married for decades is irrelevant.

Rape among adults can get into nasty grey areas with date rape or in marriage that are probably best dealt with in another topic.

Rape is never a gray area. Safe word play excepted, if a person says "no", and the other person carries on, it's rape, end of story. Whether the two people are complete strangers, acquaintances on a date, or have been married for decades is irrelevant.

Sure. With one caveat. Malicious, false accusations of rape? Are currently treated as an ordinary crime. They can and should be treated as a sex crime on a par with rape for offender's release and sexual offences registers.

Of course, I'm also against the lower classifications of "sex offender registration", which make a mockery of the entire system. Certainly in *some* cases there needs to be punishment (and treatment), but registration afterwards simply causes the conditions in which they'll re-offend. Registration needs to be reserved for the serious criminals who are a danger to the public.

A lot of people here say "it is ok for teens to have sex when both of them are 16 or 17, but it should not be allowed to have sex with a person who is 5 years older". Why do you think so?

Young people, who are sexually mature, are not the same as prepubescent children. They DO have sexual feelings, and they DO fall in love. Some 15-17 year old girls may fall in love with with someone who is 20, or 25, or even 40 years old. I am not talking about sexual abuse here, which should of course be punished. I am not talking about an adult who sleeps with as many young girls as possible and then dumps them, but about relationships that are based on love, trust and respect for each other. Why should such a relationship be wrong just because of a certain age difference?

There are also 16 year old boys who treat girls bad, are violent or cheat their girlfriends. How a person will treat his or her partner, depends on his personality and the quality of the relationship, not his age. Society should try to get away from the "dirty old man seduces innocent young girl" cliche and the sexual abuse and child porn hysteria and try to discuss these matters more reasonable and not from the moral point of view.

Why should pubescent teenagers not be able to choose how and with whom they want to act out their feelings and their sexuality? How do you explain to a 16 years old girl that fell in love with a young man who ist 5-10 years older (a rather commom case), that this love ist wrong or illegal? Don't you think that preventing her from loving the person she wants could also have negative effects and harm her? Perhaps the relationship with someone who ist a few years older could even help the young girl to become more mature herself.

Also, there ist nothing wrong when an older person finds a younger person attractive. If you look at it from the bioligical point of view, sexually mature teenagers are not children but possible parents, and youth is a sign of attractivness because it guarantees the ability to produce strong and healty offspring.

In most european contries the age of consent is 14 or 15 years, which is a reasonable boundary. Children in these countries learn from an early age that their bodies belong to them, that they have the right to say no if someone touches them in a way they don't want to, and they learn about possible risks of sex like pregnancy or diseases. When the get to an age where they may want to become sexually active themselves, they also get the right to do so. They can choose in which way they act out their sexuality and are not criminalized for doing so.

A 16 years old European girl can choose her partner without restrictions (only abuse, force and prostitution are forbidden). If she decides to have sex with a 60 years old man (or with a 60 years old woman), it is her right to do so, but on the other hand she always has the right to say no if she doesn't want that.

The result:

Teenagers in Europe don't become sexually active earlier but later than in the USA, because they know better what they want and what they don't want, they can plan their first sexual experiences better and decline unwanted sexual contacts more efficiently. There are less unwanted pregnancies, and there is less sexual abuse, because it is not taboo to talk about sex, so children will more likely tell their parents about it. On the other hand, a child that knows nothing about sex, would not even find the words to describe the abuse.